I'll go you one further, Alex. I think they should be hauled out into the streets to be drawn and quartered.


Ok, maybe Bush thought it was a constitutional laws. But when he signs laws passed by Congress, and simultaneously issues a "signing statement" indicating he has no intention of obeying said laws .... yup, drawn and freaking quartered.

Can't wait to see him brought up for war crimes

I must say that I don't understand the ruling. Seriously. Ununiformed enemy combatants aren't even covered by the Geneva convention (in fact, I believe ununiformed enemy combatants were allowed to be shot on capture without question). Why should they be given the same rights as US citizens? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't understand. They aren't US citizens and are not criminals per se, they are soldiers fighting our military in foreign countries. Why should this be under the jurisdiction of the court system?

Who says they're soldiers? The U.S. Military? What gives them that right? They picked up enemies of the Northern Alliance on the say-so of that tyranical militia. They were not "combatants" - they were on our convenient-ally's enemies list.

If that's how our military selects "enemy combatants," then it must be up to someone else to decide their fate. If not the U.S. Courts, than who?

I don't know how the courts are qualified to make the decision. The battlefield isn't a crime scene. There is no evidence collected.

Sorry....I just don't get it.

I think the Guantanamo thing was a mess from the start, as we tried to contrive some sort of quasi-place subject to no normal laws or jurisdictions where the laws of our country as well as the Geneva convention don't stand - we were trying to skirt all the laws through legal technicalities and loopholes. The whole notion of a just society rests on the premise that everyone is treated fairly, even the most odious, for that is where it is tested. If we cannot succeed in that fashion, then maybe it's time to pronounce our system dead and adopt a new model.

What of the Geneva Convention then? It seems as if the Geneva Convention is held in high regard when it comes to perceived torture, but not when it comes to the execution of ununiformed enemy combatants.

Then we should have executed those people on the battlefield - not take them away to legal limbo camp

I'm sure that would have gone over really well. I'd love to see the reaction of those who object to the detainment of (what I consider to be) POWs if they were executed under the geneva convention.

The moment we decided to take them under our custody the obligation of fair treatment began. I think if we cannot hold to that principle then we have no grounds to complain about other nations.

If they were executed on the battlefield they would have been just another numeric casualty, and while we may have been momentarily appalled, they would have quickly joined the growing number of the anonymous dead.